DEORAM Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DECEASED Gendalal was the father -in -law of appellant Deoram. Sushilabai (PW 1) is the wife of deceased while Ushabai (PW 2) is their daughter and wife of the appellant. The incident is said to have taken place on the morning of 2.5.1995 at village Nalwaya. Ushabai, wife of appellant, was having some strained relations with the appellant and at the relevant time she was residing with her parents at village Nalwaya. Appellant had gone to Nalwaya to bring his wife back. It is said, he was staying there for 2 -3 days preceding the incident in question. On 2.5.1995 around 9 O'clock in the morning, he insisted his wife to accompany him. The latter, however, refused to go. The parents of Ushabai also supported her. It appears that the accused got annoyed and firstly gave some beating to Sushilabai by a cycle -chain. He then stabbed the deceased in his stomach and also knived his wife Ushabai. One Bharatsingh (PW 3) and others from the village arrived on the scene, took the deceased and other injured persons to Police Station Anjad, 18 Kms. away from the place of occurrence. A report of the incident vide Ex. P -1 was lodged by Sushilabai, the same day at about 12.25 p.m. on the basis of which a crime was registered and the investigation followed. The deceased was shifted to District Hospital, Barwani where he and his wife and daughter were examined and treated for their injuries. However, the deceased succumbed to his stab wound on 4.5.1995. The appellant was arrested and after necessary investigation he was charge -sheeted for trial which ended into his conviction as aforesaid.

(2.) WE have heard Shri S.K. Vyas, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri G. Desai, learned PP for respondent State. The fact that appellant assaulted the deceased as also his wife and mother -in -law which ultimately resulted into the death of Gendalal, is not disputed before us. All this is borne out fully from the ocular evidence of Sushilabai (PW 1), Ushabai (PW 2) and Bharatsingh (PW 3). The former two witnesses were themselves injured in the incident and their presence could not, therefore, be disputed. Their evidence is found fully in tune with the medical evidence of Dr. O.P. Gupta who had firstly examined all the three injured persons on 2.5.1995 and then performed the autopsy on the deceased on 4.5.1995 (vide reports Ex. P -4 to Ex. P -10). Shri Vyas, learned counsel for appellant, however, made a limited contention that the incident had taken place at the spur of moment and without any premeditation and there was, thus, no intention on the part of the appellant to cause death. It is further pointed out that only single injury was inflicted to the deceased while the injuries found on the person of Ushabai, were on non -vital parts of the body. He, thus, submitted that the only offences established against the appellant are u/ss. 304 Part II, 326 and 323 of the IPC. We feel persuaded by the arguments.

(3.) IT will be, thus, seen that the only charges established against the appellant were u/s. 304 Part II, 326 and 323 of IPC. He has already suffered imprisonment for eight years which appears more than sufficient for the offences proved against the appellant. Accordingly we allow the appeal in part and to the extent indicated above. While appellant's conviction u/s. 323 IPC and sentence of three months' R.I. awarded therefor, are affirmed, his conviction u/s 302 and 307 of IPC is altered to section 304 Part II and 326 of IPC. For the offence u/s. 304 Part II of IPC, he is sentenced to seven years R.I. while for the offence u/s 326 of IPC, he is sentenced to R.I. for three years. All the jail sentences shall run concurrently. In case, the appellant has suffered the sentences as aforesaid, he be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.